Court

F-2014-279

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-279, Cruz-Brizuela appealed his conviction for Aggravated Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for new trials with conflict-free counsel. Guevara also appealed his conviction for the same charge, and the court made a similar decision for him. A dissenting opinion was filed. Cruz-Brizuela and Guevara were both found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma County for having a large amount of cocaine hidden in a truck they were driving. The police had stopped them for a minor traffic issue and, upon inspection, discovered the cocaine in a secret compartment. During the trial, both men claimed they did not know about the drugs, but because they shared the same lawyer, there were concerns about an actual conflict of interest that seemed to affect their defense. The case stemmed from an incident on April 25, 2012, when an officer pulled their truck over. The officer had suspicions about the trip based on the men's log books and their explanations about stops they made along the way. The prosecutor argued that it was more likely that either Cruz-Brizuela or Guevara had placed the cocaine in the trailer during a long stop during their journey. Both men argued that their lawyer’s conflict made it impossible for him to defend them properly, as he could not use certain evidence to benefit one without hurting the other. Because their defense relied on the idea that neither of them knew about the drugs, the conflict prevented their lawyer from arguing effectively. The court found that the actual conflict had indeed affected the counsel's performance and, thus, both convictions were reversed. The judges agreed that it was important for defendants to have lawyers without conflicting interests to ensure a fair trial. The case was remanded for new trials where both Cruz-Brizuela and Guevara could have separate attorneys who could focus on their individual defenses. So, the outcome was that Cruz-Brizuela and Guevara were given another chance to defend themselves against the charges, this time with legal representation that wasn’t hindered by conflicts of interest.

Continue ReadingF-2014-279

RE-2013-279

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2013-279, the appellant appealed his conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol and transporting an open container of liquor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentences, stating that the trial court lost jurisdiction because it did not hold the revocation hearing within the required twenty days after the appellant entered his plea. The decision was made without needing to address the other arguments raised by the appellant. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE-2013-279

RE 2012-0711

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2012-0711, Creekmore appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order revoking Creekmore's suspended sentence and remand for a new hearing. One member of the court dissented.

Continue ReadingRE 2012-0711

F-2011-1054

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-1054, Michael Don Bryant appealed his conviction for Grand Larceny. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Bryant's conviction and sentence but ordered that his Judgment and Sentence be corrected to accurately reflect the crime he was convicted of. One judge dissented. Michael Don Bryant had a trial by jury and was found guilty of Grand Larceny in Logan County. He was sentenced to one year in prison and had to pay a fine. After the trial, Bryant appealed, claiming a few mistakes happened during his trial. First, he said that the prosecutor made some unfair comments during closing arguments that hurt his chances of a fair trial. Bryant believed that the way the prosecutor spoke about his defense was wrong and led the jury to be biased against him. However, the court did not agree that these comments made the trial unfair. Second, he argued that a police officer gave evidence that should not have been allowed in the trial. The officer talked about the surveillance cameras and the cables that were involved in the case. Again, the court found that while the officer's comments might have seemed odd, they did not prove to be a big mistake in the trial. Lastly, Bryant pointed out that there was a problem with the official documents after his trial. The papers said he was convicted of embezzlement, but he was actually found guilty of Grand Larceny. Bryant wanted the court to fix this mistake and to make sure he got credit for time he had already served in jail. The court agreed that there was a mistake in the official documents and sent the case back to fix the paperwork. However, they kept Bryant's conviction and sentence the same.

Continue ReadingF-2011-1054

F-2011-354

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-354, Isaiah Hasan Gilbert appealed his conviction for Felonious Possession of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from thirty years to twenty years in prison. Gilbert was found guilty after a jury trial. He was charged with having a gun even though he was not allowed to because of his past criminal record. The jury recommended a sentence of thirty years and a fine of $5,000. Gilbert argued that his lawyer did not do a good job during the trial and that his sentence was too long considering the circumstances. The court looked carefully at everything that happened during the trial. It agreed that Gilbert's lawyer made mistakes but concluded that they did not affect the trial's outcome enough to reverse the conviction entirely. One of the main issues was that Gilbert's lawyer did not call a witness who could have said the gun belonged to someone else. Instead, the lawyer tried to bring that information up in a way that was not allowed, which was a mistake. The court also found that the jury heard improper information about Gilbert’s past, specifically that he had been given suspended sentences from previous convictions. The prosecutor mentioned this to the jury, which could have unfairly influenced their decision on how long to sentence him. Because of these issues, the court decided to reduce Gilbert's sentence from thirty years to twenty years. In conclusion, the decision by the court maintained Gilbert's conviction but reduced the time he had to spend in prison due to the unfair use of his past criminal history in the trial process.

Continue ReadingF-2011-354

RE-2010-293

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2010-293, Downs appealed his conviction for a probation violation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Downs had entered guilty pleas for several crimes in 2004, which included assault and possessing controlled substances. After completing part of his sentence in 2006, some of his time was suspended, meaning he would not have to serve it if he followed the rules of probation. However, in 2008, the State accused him of violating his probation because he was arrested for a new crime. A hearing took place in 2010 where evidence was presented, and the judge found that the State proved Downs had violated his probation. As a result, all of his suspended sentence was revoked. Downs raised several arguments in his appeal, saying the trial judge made mistakes that affected his case. He claimed he was not given enough time to prepare his defense, that the evidence against him was not strong enough, and that he was not allowed to confront witnesses. He also argued that the revocation was for too long and that the judge didn't have the right to revoke his sentence. The court examined each of Downs' claims. They found that it was reasonable for the judge to deny a continuance for more time to prepare, and that the evidence at the hearing was enough to support the revocation of his probation. They also stated that Downs had waived his right to a quick hearing, meaning the 20-day rule that he mentioned did not apply. In the end, the court did agree that there was a small mistake in the length of time noted for the revoked sentence, which needed to be corrected. However, they affirmed the decision to revoke all of Downs' suspended sentences. Thus, the court ordered that a corrected record be made to show the right amount of time for his sentences. The judges all generally agreed on the decision, but one judge had a different opinion.

Continue ReadingRE-2010-293

RE-2009-239

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2009-239, the appellant appealed his conviction for uttering a forged instrument. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the order of revocation to allow for concurrent sentences instead of consecutive sentences. One judge dissented regarding the finding of excessiveness in the revocation order. In the case, the appellant, who was originally given the benefit of a deferred sentence and then suspended sentences, was accused of violating his probation by not reporting to his probation officer. The sentencing judge ultimately revoked his suspended sentences and imposed a total of eight years in prison, which he argued was excessive. The court reviewed the record and statements made by the judge during the revocation hearing. They determined that although the judge had the power to revoke less than the full suspension, the circumstances of the case warranted a modification to allow the sentences to be served concurrently, rather than consecutively as originally ordered. Additionally, the appellant contended that a second assessment for victim compensation was unlawful, as it exceeded the statutory limit. However, the court noted that the compensation assessments were appropriate and not void, concluding that this issue did not affect the validity of the revocation order itself. The final decision directed the district court to change the revocation order to reflect concurrent serving of sentences while affirming the other aspects of the revocation.

Continue ReadingRE-2009-239

F-2008-97

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-97, the appellant appealed her conviction for child neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction. One judge dissented. The appellant, Kristie K. Thompson, was found guilty by a jury for not providing proper medical care for her child’s rash. The case was heard in the Stephens County District Court, where she was sentenced to six months in jail. She appealed the conviction for several reasons, including claims that the instructions given to the jury were incorrect and that she should have been given a chance for a lesser charge. After carefully reviewing the evidence and the arguments, the court found that there was not enough proof to show that she willfully neglected the medical needs of her child. They concluded that no reasonable person could have decided she was guilty based on the evidence. Therefore, they reversed her conviction and instructed the lower court to dismiss the case. Since they found a major error related to the evidence, the court decided not to address the other claims made by the appellant. The court issued their decision based on the principle that everyone deserves a fair trial and that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Continue ReadingF-2008-97

F-2006-1282

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-1282, Michael Ralph Conroy appealed his conviction for several serious crimes, including first-degree rape, kidnapping, and domestic abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but ordered a new sentencing hearing. One judge dissented, agreeing with the convictions but opposing the need for resentencing. Conroy was found guilty after a jury trial that reviewed evidence against him. He received significant prison time, amounting to 50 years for most of his charges and a year in jail for the domestic abuse charge, along with a fine. During the appeal, Conroy argued various issues, including the admission of evidence related to other crimes, the authenticity of certain exhibits, and the overall lack of evidence supporting his conviction. He also claimed that some evidence presented at trial was not allowed by law and that he did not receive effective legal representation. The court examined all of these arguments. They found that the evidence admitted during the trial was relevant and showed Conroy's guilt, including letters he wrote that indicated his intent to influence witness testimony. The report concerning the sexual assault was also deemed admissible because it fell under a specific exception to regular rules about hearsay. However, the court acknowledged a mistake regarding jury instructions on the 85% rule, which requires certain criminals to serve a significant part of their sentences before being eligible for parole. This oversight necessitated a new hearing only for sentencing. In the end, even though the appeals court affirmed the guilty verdicts, it recognized the trial court should reconsider the sentencing due to the jury instruction error.

Continue ReadingF-2006-1282

S-2008-53

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2008-53, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction for Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the earlier decisions, meaning they upheld the conclusion that there was not enough evidence to proceed with the trial against the defendant. One judge dissented in this case. The case was about a parent who was accused of child abuse after leaving her two children in a vehicle while she became unconscious. The court looked at whether the parent’s actions met the legal definition of child abuse. A special judge had already decided there wasn’t enough evidence to charge her, and when the State appealed that decision, the district judge agreed. When the case reached the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the justices reviewed the earlier decisions. They listened to arguments from both sides and looked closely at the facts. They saw that the earlier judges had acted reasonably and hadn’t made any mistakes that would change the outcome. Therefore, they decided to keep the original ruling, which meant that the parent wouldn’t have to face trial for the charges brought against her.

Continue ReadingS-2008-53

F 2006-443

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2006-443, Bill Neal Robison, II, appealed his conviction for causing an accident involving great bodily injury while driving under the influence of alcohol. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. A judge dissented. Robison was found guilty in a trial that took place in Oklahoma County. The jury decided he should serve five years in prison and pay a fine of $5000. He appealed on two main points. First, he argued that the results of a blood test from the hospital should not have been used against him in court. Second, he claimed that his lawyer did not represent him properly. The court looked closely at Robison's first point and agreed that the blood test should not have been included as evidence. The test was done for medical reasons, and the court noted that it was not one of the specific tests approved for measuring alcohol levels under the law. The treating doctor testified that Robison's blood alcohol level was very high, but because the test did not follow the right rules, it could not be trusted as evidence in the trial. Since this test result was important for the case, the court could not ignore the mistake, which led them to reverse his conviction. They decided that Robison should have a new trial where this evidence would not be used against him. The second argument about the lawyer's performance was not needed since the court ordered a new trial. The final decision meant that Robison would go back to court for a fresh trial without the improper blood test evidence. The judges' opinions on the new trial varied, with one judge expressing disagreement with reversing the conviction based on the blood test's results.

Continue ReadingF 2006-443

S-2007-885

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2007-885, the defendant appealed his conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the earlier decisions made by the lower courts. One judge dissented. The case started in the District Court of Tulsa County, where the defendant was accused of not registering as a sex offender. After looking at the evidence presented by the state, the special judge decided there was not enough evidence to go to trial. The state didn't agree and decided to appeal this decision, claiming that the lower courts made errors in their judgments. The main points raised in the appeal included whether there was enough evidence to charge the defendant, if the defense of being homeless should be considered, and if homelessness could excuse the defendant from registering as a sex offender. After listening to arguments and reviewing all the evidence and decisions made previously, the court found that the lower courts did not make mistakes. The judges agreed that there was not enough evidence to hold the defendant for trial and that the reasons given by the lower courts were valid. As a result, the court upheld the decisions of the lower judges and ruled that the defendant would not be tried for the charges brought against him. The final orders from the lower courts were affirmed, meaning that the case was closed without any changes.

Continue ReadingS-2007-885

M-2007-192

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2007-192, the appellant appealed his conviction for three counts of Threatening by Telephone or Other Electronic Communication. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and instructed the lower court to dismiss the case. One judge dissented. The appellant, Robert Eugene Schwab, was found guilty by a jury in Creek County for sending threats through electronic communication. The jury decided his punishment would consist of a short jail time and fines. However, the case raised a significant legal question about whether the appellant's actions were considered a crime at the time he committed them. During the trial, it was discovered that the specific crime Schwab was convicted of was not defined as illegal when he sent the emails in question. After looking into this issue, the State acknowledged this error and agreed that the conviction should be reversed. The court decided that Schwab's actions did not fit into the law as it was understood at that earlier time, which led to the decision to dismiss the charges against him.

Continue ReadingM-2007-192

F-2006-348

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-348, Charles Terrell appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified his sentence from twenty years to ten years. One judge dissented. Charles Terrell was found guilty by a jury for molesting a young girl. The jury decided he should spend twenty years in prison. During the trial, evidence about other crimes was brought up, which included testimony from Terrell's former step-daughter who said Terrell had abused her too. Terrell argued that this testimony was unfair and should not have been allowed, as it could make the jury think he was guilty of more than just the crime he was accused of in this case. The court agreed that mentioning the other crimes was not handled well, as it wasn't properly limited. However, they also believed the main evidence from the victim in this case was strong and enough to show he was guilty. They found that allowing the other testimony did not change the fact that Terrell was guilty, so his conviction stood. On the topic of his sentence, the court thought about how the other crimes evidence might have led the jury to give him a much longer sentence than they would have otherwise. Because of this, they decided to reduce his sentence to ten years instead of twenty. The court concluded that the main evidence was solid, but the details about his past accusations were overly prejudicial and affected the severity of his punishment. The judge also noted that a photograph of the victim was properly allowed into evidence and was not seen as too harmful. In the end, while the conviction remained, the court decided to lessen the time Terrell would spend in prison, trimming it down to ten years.

Continue ReadingF-2006-348

C-2006-1110

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-1110, Andrew Deon Bowie appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and burglary in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition for certiorari and remand the case for the appointment of new counsel. One member of the court dissented. Andrew Deon Bowie was charged with robbery with a firearm, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and burglary. After a preliminary hearing, he agreed to a plea deal and pleaded guilty to robbery and burglary. He was sentenced to thirty years in prison for the robbery and twenty years for burglary, with the sentences running at the same time. Bowie later wanted to challenge his guilty pleas. He argued that he did not have good legal help when he tried to withdraw his guilty pleas because his lawyer had a conflict of interest, which made it hard for Bowie to get proper representation. The law says that people in criminal cases should have effective lawyers who don’t have conflicts that could hurt their case. The court looked at Bowie’s request and agreed that he did not have proper legal help. They found that the trial court should have given him a new lawyer to help with his request to withdraw his pleas, as he was left without anyone to represent him. Because of this, the court said they would let his petition go forward. The decision found that Bowie’s lawyer had acted against his interests by suggesting that Bowie shouldn’t be allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas. This created a conflict which made Bowie unable to defend himself properly. As a result of their findings, the court granted Bowie’s request and sent the case back to the lower court. They instructed the lower court to appoint a new lawyer to help Bowie with his effort to withdraw his guilty pleas. One judge disagreed with this decision, saying that Bowie did not bring up the issue of bad legal help earlier in the process, so it should not be considered now. The dissenting judge felt there was not enough evidence to support Bowie’s claims about needing to withdraw his pleas. Overall, the case was about making sure that Bowie had the right legal support, and the court decided that he didn’t have that, which affected his ability to have a fair process in court.

Continue ReadingC-2006-1110

C-2006-571

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-571, Robert Carl Sharp appealed his conviction for three counts of First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant certiorari and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Robert Carl Sharp was convicted on January 5, 2006, after he entered guilty pleas to three counts of First Degree Manslaughter in the Pottawatomie County District Court. His sentencing was postponed until a Presentence Report could be made. When he was finally sentenced on February 15, 2006, he received ten years in prison for each count, with the sentences to be served one after the other. After the sentencing, Sharp wanted to withdraw his guilty pleas. He filed an application to do this on February 23, 2006, but during the hearing for this application on March 15, 2006, he was not present. The court denied his application to withdraw his pleas. This led Sharp to appeal the decision, raising several points he believed were errors in the process. Sharp argued that: 1. He was denied his right to be present at the hearing about withdrawing his pleas. 2. His sentences were too harsh and should be changed. 3. He did not get enough time to present evidence that could have helped lessen his sentence. The court looked carefully at Sharp's claims. They found that he did not get to be present at the hearing about his application to withdraw his guilty pleas, and there was no record showing he agreed to not be there. The court stated that a person has the right to be present in any situation that could affect the fairness of the process. Because the hearing where he wanted to withdraw his plea was an important part of the legal process, Sharp's absence was considered a violation of his rights. Thus, the court decided to send the case back to the district court so that Sharp could have a new hearing. This new hearing would allow him to be present and give his side of the story regarding his application to withdraw his guilty pleas. Since they granted his appeal on this matter, the other arguments he made were no longer needed to be considered. In conclusion, the court granted Sharp's request and sent the case back to the lower court for a new hearing. One judge disagreed with this decision, believing that even though he was absent from the hearing, it did not change the fact that his original guilty plea was valid and made willingly.

Continue ReadingC-2006-571

F 2005-281

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-281, the appellant appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modify the sentences to run concurrently. One judge dissented. Charles Anthony Willingham was found guilty of four counts of lewd molestation against his adopted daughter while she was in middle school. The jury decided that Willingham should serve a total of 60 years in prison, with the sentences for each count to be served one after the other, known as consecutively. Willingham thought that his trial had many problems and raised several points in his appeal about how he did not get a fair trial. Willingham's first point was that his lawyer did a bad job by not asking the judge to give the jury clear instructions on how to consider evidence about his past wrongdoings. He believed this evidence should have been limited, but the jury did not get those instructions while the trial was happening. Instead, instructions were given at the end, which he thought was not enough. His second point was about the charges themselves. He claimed that because the charges didn’t say exactly when the events occurred, he could be tried for the same crime more than once, which is against the law. He argued this made it hard for him to properly defend himself. For his third point, Willingham said his lawyer should have used his medical records to help his case. He believed these records would show he was telling the truth about his health problems and that they would provide evidence against the accusations. His fourth point was about a doctor’s testimony. Willingham argued that the doctor's expert opinion on child psychology unfairly made the victim seem more credible, suggesting that the jury might have thought the victim was telling the truth without considering all the evidence. His fifth point involved comments made by the prosecutor during closing arguments. Willingham believed these comments were unfair and did not help him get a fair trial. In his sixth point, Willingham asked the court to change his total sentence. He felt 60 years was too severe, especially considering the comments made by the prosecutor. Lastly, he argued that because of all the errors in his trial, he should either get a new trial or have his punishments changed. After carefully reviewing Willingham's arguments, the court decided to keep his convictions but changed his sentences to be served at the same time (concurrently) instead of one after the other. They found that Willingham did not show that his lawyer’s performance was so bad that it harmed his case. They agreed that he was properly notified about the charges against him and that the doctor’s testimony was acceptable. The court noted that while they thought Willingham’s sentences originally felt excessive, they decided that running them concurrently would be fairer given the circumstances. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision that held Willingham guilty but altered his punishment to reflect a more reasonable approach by having the sentences served at the same time.

Continue ReadingF 2005-281

F-2004-1096

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1096, Deon Lamar Nelson appealed his conviction for two counts of Assault and Battery Upon An Officer of State Court. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Nelson's convictions but modified the sentence for Count I to three years of imprisonment. One judge dissented in part. Nelson was found guilty by a jury for hitting two court officers. He received a longer sentence for the first charge, where he hit one officer, due to the injuries caused. The main arguments he made in his appeal included issues with how the cases were joined together, whether a defense attorney counts as an officer of the court, the admission of certain evidence that he claimed was unfair, and concerns about his competency during the trial. The court held that it was fine to join the two cases together, and they ruled that a defense attorney is indeed considered an officer of the court. Regarding the evidence about the injuries from the assault, the court mentioned that some of it shouldn't have been included since it might have affected the fairness of his sentencing. Although they found error in admitting this evidence, they still believed the overall verdicts and the remaining parts of the trial were fair. Ultimately, the court decided that Nelson's sentence for the first count of assault was too severe due to the improper evidence, and they modified it to three years, while they affirmed the conviction and sentence for the second count. One judge agreed with most of the decision but disagreed with reducing the sentence, stating the injuries were relevant for determining the punishment.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1096

F-2005-129

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-129, Denise Sue Watie appealed her conviction for sexually abusing a minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Denise Sue Watie was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County for sexually abusing her son. The jury suggested that she should serve eight years in prison. She was sentenced accordingly on January 24, 2005. After her conviction, she decided to appeal the decision, stating several reasons why she believed the trial was unfair. First, Watie claimed the court made an error by allowing certain evidence that she thought was unnecessary and repetitive. However, the court found that the admission of a videotaped interview of the complainant was acceptable under the law. Since the court followed the correct procedures, this part of her appeal was denied. Next, Watie argued that her confession to the police should not have been allowed because it was taken without informing her of her rights. The court examined how the police interviewed her. They noted that she was not arrested and could leave at any time. Because of this, the court concluded that the interview was not a custodial interrogation and did not require the police to read her the Miranda rights. Thus, Watie's statements were considered voluntary, and these claims were also denied. Watie also contended that the jury should have been instructed about the requirement that she would serve at least 85% of her sentence in prison. The court agreed that this information was important and should have been provided to the jury upon Watie’s request. Due to this oversight, her sentence was modified from eight years to six years. Lastly, Watie claimed that her sentence was too harsh. Since the court found that the jury should have been informed about the 85% rule, they reduced her sentence but did not fully agree with her position on its harshness. The decision to modify the sentence made her final argument about the severity of the punishment unnecessary. In conclusion, the judgment of the district court was affirmed, but her sentence was reduced to six years. The appeal brought attention to important legal procedures, but ultimately, the court decided that the original conviction stood, with a slight change to the length of time she would serve in prison.

Continue ReadingF-2005-129

F-2004-871

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-871, George Shelton, Jr., appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Shelton's conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. George Shelton was found guilty after a trial. He was accused of hiding stolen things and had a history of past crimes, which meant he could face a heavier punishment. The jury decided on a sentence of thirty-five years in prison. Shelton thought this punishment was too harsh and argued that what the prosecutor did was unfair because they brought up his past crimes during the trial. He believed this was done because he had tried to defend himself. The court looked very closely at everything that happened. They thought there wasn’t enough evidence to show that the prosecutor acted unfairly against Shelton. They believed that the facts presented during the case were enough to prove he was guilty. However, they agreed with Shelton that his punishment was too much. They decided to change his sentence to five years instead of thirty-five. In short, the court upheld the conviction of Shelton but changed his punishment to be less severe. While one judge agreed with the conviction and the sentence reduction, they did not think the modification was correct and chose to disagree.

Continue ReadingF-2004-871

C-2004-903

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2004-903, David Wayne Laughlin appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Laughlin’s request to withdraw his guilty plea and remand the case for a new hearing. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingC-2004-903

C-2003-845

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2003-845, Curtis Randall Foote appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including First Degree Burglary, Intimidation of a Witness, Domestic Abuse Assault and Battery, and Threatening an Act of Violence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for First Degree Burglary, Intimidation of a Witness, Domestic Abuse Assault and Battery, but to reverse the conviction for Threatening an Act of Violence with instructions to dismiss that charge. One judge dissented. Foote had entered a no contest plea in the District Court of Grady County, where the judge sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment. Foote later tried to withdraw his plea, but the court denied his request. He then appealed this denial. The court reviewed the entire case record and considered multiple reasons Foote presented for his appeal. The first issue was whether he truly entered his plea of no contest. The court found that he did intend to plead no contest, so the plea was accepted correctly by the trial court. Foote also argued that he should not have been treated as a habitual offender because his past convictions were not properly documented. While the court found that his maximum sentence was appropriate, they acknowledged an error in the judgment that needed correcting. Foote also claimed that being convicted of both Intimidation of a Witness and Threatening an Act of Violence was unfair, as they were linked. The court agreed and reversed the latter conviction. However, it determined that his other convictions were valid and based on separate actions. The court ruled that the evidence supporting his intimidation charge was sufficient, and his claim of not having proper legal representation was rejected. Ultimately, the court denied his petition for a writ of certiorari, which means they did not find enough reason to change the lower court's decisions aside from the reversal of the Threatening an Act of Violence charge. They ordered some corrections to the written judgment but upheld most of the other convictions.

Continue ReadingC-2003-845

F-2002-1437

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-1437, Alonzo Gabriel Davison appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation and Sexually Abusing a Minor Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modify his sentences. One judge dissented. Davison was found guilty of two serious crimes related to child abuse and was sentenced to a total of 125 years in prison. However, the court agreed that some mistakes were made during the trial that affected how the case was handled. The main issues in the appeal included the fairness of the jury selection process, the admission of a videotape of a child’s testimony, and how the judge handled questions from the jury about sentencing. Davison argued that two jurors should not have been allowed to serve because they were biased and had strong feelings about child abuse, which could have impacted their decision. The court discussed how judges have discretion in deciding if a juror can be fair, but in this case, they felt that there were too many doubts about the impartiality of those jurors. Even though Davison's team challenged these jurors, they still ended up on the jury. However, because the defense did not follow all proper procedures to ensure their objections were raised correctly, the court ruled that Davison could not claim this issue harmed him in the end. Next, Davison argued that a videotape showing an interview with one of the child victims should not have been used in court. The court eventually agreed this was a mistake, but they decided it was a harmless error regarding his guilt—that is, it did not affect the jury's decision about whether he was guilty. However, the impact of such evidence on sentencing was considered more serious, leading the court to reduce each of his sentences to 45 years, which would run at the same time instead of one after the other. Regarding the jury's questions about parole and sentencing rules, the court concluded the trial judge was correct not to answer these questions, indicating that it was within the judge's discretion. Overall, while the court found some mistakes were made in how the trial was conducted, they decided that Davison's convictions were still valid, but he would serve a lighter sentence.

Continue ReadingF-2002-1437

F-2003-505

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-505, the appellant appealed his conviction for Maintaining a Place for Keeping/Selling Controlled Substances. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that a new trial was required because the jury was not properly instructed about the elements necessary for a felony conviction. The appellant argued that the jury was not asked whether he knowingly or intentionally maintained a place for keeping controlled substances, which was important for the severity of the penalty. Thus, the decision to impose a five-year prison sentence and a fine of $10,000 exceeded what the law allowed. Therefore, the court reversed the appellant's conviction and sent the case back for a new trial. One judge dissented from this decision.

Continue ReadingF-2003-505

C-2003-403

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2003-403, David Lee Maywald appealed his conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender and Registered Sex Offender Working with or Providing Services to Children. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the sentence in Count II to a fine only, while affirming the denial of the motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. David Lee Maywald, also known as David Lee Graham, was charged with two crimes related to being a registered sex offender. He entered a guilty plea to both charges and was sentenced to prison time and fines. After he changed his mind, he asked to withdraw his guilty plea, feeling he was misinformed about the potential sentences he might face. The court looked closely at Maywald's reasons for wanting to change his plea. First, he argued that he misunderstood the sentencing range for Count II, believing he faced more than just a fine. The court agreed that he shouldn't have received jail time for that count, as the law only allowed for a fine. So, they decided to change his sentence for Count II to just the fine amount. In his second argument, he felt he was misinformed about the maximum fine for Count I. However, the court found that the fine he received was less than what could have been, and since it matched what was agreed upon in the plea deal, it wasn’t a reason to withdraw his plea. For his third point, Maywald argued that he didn’t fully understand the implications of his guilty plea. The court said he didn’t provide enough evidence to show that he entered the plea without understanding its consequences. The court noted that he had been clearly informed multiple times about how he wouldn’t get credit for time served leading up to his sentencing. Overall, while Maywald's request to withdraw his plea was denied, the court acknowledged the error regarding the jail sentence for Count II and modified that sentence to comply with the law. The rest of the decisions from the lower court were kept the same. The judges agreed on most points, but one had a differing opinion on the case.

Continue ReadingC-2003-403